The creators decided to ask, "where does Superman fit among the popular films of our time?" "Does he still have a place?"

Sure, maybe - but I find Zack Snyder's work to frequently be on the derivative side (see the Dr. Strangelove stuff used for the Watchmen movie's original material [scenes that there wasn't a comic book panel to reference])

But I found it more cute than anything else 'cause the whole movie has such a 12 year old boy energy to it - and when you're playing with action figures you take bits of other movies for your fight scenes.

@Flecky

To be honest it's not important; they're just visual things/set pieces - nothing tonal and nothing that gets in the way. I was just stuck by the volume of "references" - and the Star Trek stuff is nothing that hasn't been in a thousand other dramas since Aristotle.

@William

Costner and Laine giving the movie some warmth

Yeah, and I think jumping back and forth to them really keeps the movie together.

I suppose officially the satellite is probably just a cosmetic touch, but the movie does fit into the Bat universe in so far as Batman couldn't have helped with Zod and Superman wouldn't have interfered with the Batman movies because he was keeping his head down/ walking the earth. I wonder how much of that was by design, at least at some stage of production.

Of course, as far as integrating Batman goes, I can't see them integrating the Nolanverse Batman... If they wanna do the Justice League movie, they're going to have to reboot Batman AGAIN, because pulling Nolan!Batman out of retirement goes against his whole character arc in the third movie, as bloated as that was. That, or pull in the Robin guy.

Oh, there's no question Snyder's derivative. And the original parts of the fight scene were the stupidest (like when Zod swings Supes around by his cape. I kept hearing the line from THE INCREDIBLES: "This is why you don't wear capes!")

It's probably the best Superman movie, but it doesn't have the best Superman, if that makes sense. It doesn't hold a candle to Reeve, although I actually don't blame Cavill for that. It's not his fault Snyder asked him to scream and growl when a little more stoicism would have sufficed. The ensemble supporting cast is excellent, though, yes, even Crowe. They elevated what precious little they had to work with.

The way to do Batman in a Justice League film is to just have Batman, none of the Bruce Wayne angst shit. Just have him as a scary shadow that can kick anyone's arse and leave him as a mystery to the rest of the cast, that the audience know the answer to.

Or maybe just have one brief scene were Superman says something like 'I have x-ray vision, I know who you are' and Batman tossing him a copy of the Daily Planet saying 'I have spectacles-penetrating vision, I know who you are too' or something like that and then say no more about it, but procede to the ultraviolence.

Pretty much what has been said, especially about it being derivative. We kept leaning over to each other saying, "The Matrix, Star Wars, Avatar." It worked well as a Superman movie, with only a couple cringe inducing cheese moments. My friend who really liked it felt it was throw back almost to old comic sentimentality, which he enjoyed in the realm of dark/human super hero tropes (thanks batman).

I thought there were some really great fight scenes - Antje Traue, aaahhh, so badass - and then some that actually bored me. Though at least twice, I wanted to yell, "Blitzen suit!!!!"

My biggest issue was every time Snyder had me in his hand, say the flashback to first getting his powers, he'd ruin it with some overbearing garbage, like say a momma and a baby whale...a fucking whale...

All that said. Probably a solid B because it got some points for being about Superman.

I found Man of Steel OK. To be honest, I was thinking of leaving not long after it started. For about the first half I was thinking: "Yeah! I know all this; get on with it!" I went for a cigarette, came back in and got into the fight scenes. I thought they were decent. Though not as good as his Batman stuff, I liked Hans Zimmer's score.

BIG JOY: THE ADVENTURES OF JAMES BROUGHTON is a funny/lively/offbeat documentary about the poet/avant-garde filmmaker/sexual free spirit who artistically bridged the gap between Maya Deren and The Beats. Not only are there generous clips from many of Broughton's short films such as "This Is It" and "The Bed," but the film takes a sort of joyous stream-of-consciousness approach to discussing Broughton's life that would do the man proud.

It's definitely not hagiography. The film admits Broughton had a rough childhood. It doesn't whitewash the pain Broughton caused by being an absent father and eventually divorcing his wife. But at the same time, "Big Joy" eventually winds up being a film about a man whose spiritual playfulness still inspires people today.

Saw NOW YOU SEE ME last night. This movie came completely out of left field for me, in that two days before I saw it I had never even heard of it, and the day before I saw it eight people all said "you've got to go see this movie!" The best description of the plot I was given was "OCEAN'S 11 meets THE PRESTIGE" which is accurate both in the way it sums up what kind of movie it is, and it's quite indicative of the quality of the movie.

The actors are clearly all professionals who know what they're doing and are having fun with it. Jesse Eisenberg is no longer the funny-looking Michael Cera clone he was just a few years ago, and you can see glimpses in NOW YOU SEE ME of a pretty great career ahead of him. Woody Harrelson is a very good combination of both funny and just a little spooky, which is perfect for his character as a con-man mentalist. Mark Ruffalo plays strung-out better than just about anybody these days, and he goes through this whole movie looking like he is one spilled coffee away from snapping completely. Morgan Freeman is Morgan goddamn Freeman. It is incredibly and unexpectedly fun to watch Michael Caine be a rich, mean-spirited slug of a human being.

There are some bits that really could be left cut out, I think, which would make the story both leaner and cleaner, but I want to see it a second time just to be sure. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a twist reveal in the movie, and some of the things that I think could be taken out might actually be subtle clues. Either way, the movie's just good enough to see a second time. A few weak points here and there and some slightly dodgy visual effects keep it from getting an A+, but it's a solid A. Give it a shot if you've got two spare hours.

Can I just chime in here real quick and say that I completely echo TF's statement?!I fully expected it to look like one of the Lego games, but it actually looks like a LEGO MOVIE, just with more bells and whistles than has ever before been lavished on one.

The Lego Movie is written and directed by Phil Lord & Chris Miller, the guys who did Clone High, which is an absolutely fantastic show that everyone who hasn't seen it should watch. They also did Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and directed 21 Jump Street, which are both really funny.